"Financially literate" more likely to be positive on immigration

The more you understand things like inflation etc, the more likely you are to support immigration. Interesting study, but I don't think the financial worries in Europe are really the nub of most people's objections any more so much as a fear about retaining national cultures and sometimes even languages in each country, and of course the other fear right now of home-grown terrorism.

Are you financially literate? I'm really not, but I do see that as the UK based its economy on the service industry, we probably are going to need some people to do those jobs. But I'm sure there is another way to look at it!

"The study, which used panel surveys of up to 30,000 people, found that those who correctly understood interest rates, inflation and risk diversification were statistically more likely to agree with the notion that immigration “enriches Britain’s cultural life”.

I think concerns about immigration are not rooted in concern for the nation's cultural life.

Really? You see I think they are. I think a lot of people worry about their town being overrun by immigrants and losing their collective identity. On a bilingual forum I'm a member of, a mum there said she was told by a teacher that she couldn't speak her mother tongue to her child while on school property (I.e. In school grounds at drop off). Obviously outrage in our bilingual group! But then some bilingual Dutch people backed this attitude up, citing that over 50% of some schools are composed of children who do not speak Dutch, some inner city schools as high as 80%. Which did help me to understand the xenophobic attitude of the teacher, if not excuse it.

I am reasonably financially literate, I worked many, many, moons ago for international companies, travelled a lot for my companies and felt so 'enriched', I made sure my children went to a good State school that was excellent on teaching languages and they went on frequent exchange visits.

But that does not mean I am blind to the downsides of immigration, IF we are not prepared for it, as we weren't.

And how can any report ever say that being members of the EU, with hundreds of millions of citizens, observing the core free movement of labour principle, that this does not COMPRESS downward pay rates in every unskilled and many medium to high skilled jobs - as when will, when CAN, a 'shortage' of such labour, ever drive UP pay rates with such an large EU worker pool?

For instance, we have a minimum wage, and lets say it went to £9 tomorrow and our economy remains far stronger than most of Europe, can we seriously believe that it will not attract MORE EU citizens as a price of our economic success?

And what pressure will that put on public services?

Now I would rather chew my right arm off than ever vote UKIP, but this country needs to stop pretending that there is no price for being members of the EU or pretend that salaries can be pushed ever higher, especially for the LOW skilled, without a NEGATIVE reaction i.e. companies go bust, immigration increases, or employers locate/relocate their investment/jobs to EU countries with cheaper labour.

Especially if UK governments in the years ahead keep pushing up all the other costs of companies doing business, in the interests of 'fairness', while those companies also have to navigate volatility in the Pound versus the Euro and $ etc -as happened in the 2000's with manufacturing jobs.

TheOddity you are right in understanding what really lies behind the increasing support for parties who wish to control immigration. It is mainly cultural and about "way of life". It is similar to the concern over the influence of the metropolitan elite over the country and their political correctness which affects culture and way of life.

One of the report's author's says

“What is really interesting about this immigration stuff is that the more you understand how labour markets work, and how taxes work and are spent, the more positive you are towards immigration. It’s as simple as that.”

But it is not as simple as that and the people aren't as simple as that. It's not about economics because people care about culture and way of life.

The underlying view of the metropolitan elite and some of these studies is that the people are not politically correct and have concerns over immigration because they are not educated enough and not enlightened enough i.e. that they are a bit stupid and that education will change their attitude. It won't because it is about culture, something these studies don't really understand.

black funny how England is apparently in need of un controlled immigration, when we already have a very mulit cultrual society and indeed our little island is straining under the millions of people who came here under labours time at the helm. We are hardly, we were hardly under populated?

And yet the drain going on in the Eastern European countries is just ignored and glossed over, as if their economies and need for immigration doesn't matter so much. Very odd.

No it doesn't surprise me the only people who want mass immigration are those who also want to line their pockets.

I think we need to broaden the debate and think about all aspects of how we can cope with huge communities coming here, en mass in a very short space of time.

And there we have it, a socialist view, that CULTURAL DIVERSITY is the over-riding reason for high immigration numbers, not so much the economic benefits, and almost certainly not if the UK have enough jobs, social services, and homes to cope.

And this is why Labour caused such a problem and gave rise to UKIPs popularity, as in 2000 (see the link below) we now know that Labour's sofa government had undemocratically decided THE UK WAS TO BECOME MORE MULTICULTURAL;

”Labour sent out ‘search parties’ for immigrants to get them to come to the UK, Lord Mandelson has admitted.”

”In a stunning confirmation that the Blair and Brown governments deliberately engineered mass immigration, the former Cabinet Minister and spin doctor said New Labour sought out foreign workers.”

”Senior Labour figures have been reluctant to concede they deliberately engineered the influx of migrants who have transformed communities over the past decade.”

”But, at a rally for the Blairite think-tank Progress, Lord Mandelson said: ‘In 2004 when as a Labour government, we were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work, we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them, in some cases, to take up work in this country.’

Or as Mr Miliband says, "we got it wrong", yet having had this secret 'multicultural' policy (so making NO provisions for them), STILL blames the coalition for the pressures on social services, the NHS, and the lack of homes.

>black funny how England is apparently in need of un controlled immigration, when we already have a very mulit cultrual society and indeed our little island is straining under the millions of people who came here under labours time at the helm.

lol. 'Culture' isn't like a cup, which can only be filled a certain amount, after which it goes to waste, or becomes harmful.

Our little Island isn't straining because there are too many people.

Less than 7% of UK land is classified as 'Urban'.

'Since urban only covers a tenth of the country, this means that the proportion of England's landscape which is built on is… … 2.27%.'

>And yet the drain going on in the Eastern European countries is just ignored and glossed over, as if their economies and need for immigration doesn't matter so much. Very odd.

Sure it does. It's a problem for them. Are you trying to pretend that your concern over immigration is out of sympathy of eastern european nations, rather than fear of immigrants?

I'm sure the Polish government and people would delighted to have a huge flux of immigrants from all over europe: it would bring in immeasurable economic, cultural and political benefits.

>No it doesn't surprise me the only people who want mass immigration are those who also want to line their pockets.

Your statement is false to begin with. Many people want to live in a multicultural society, and love and appreciate immigrants and immigrations. I am one of those people. I am a lowly worker, hardly someone who can line their pockets on back of the labour of immigrants.

>I think we need to broaden the debate and think about all aspects of how we can cope with huge communities coming here, en mass in a very short space of time.

Public investment in housing and infrastructure, maybe? Rather than austerity, which basically funnels wealth from the poor to the rich?

>Now I would rather chew my right arm off than ever vote UKIP, but this country needs to stop pretending that there is no price for being members of the EU or pretend that salaries can be pushed ever higher, especially for the LOW skilled, without a NEGATIVE reaction i.e. companies go bust, immigration increases, or employers locate/relocate their investment/jobs to EU countries with cheaper labour.

- The continual availability of NEW employees from Europe etc does NOT cause wage rate compression, as there is no such economic 'reaction' as a shortage of labour driving up wage rates.

- International companies DON'T plan 5-years ahead or more when deciding where and when to invest/create jobs.

- International companies HAVE to stay in, or locate to, the UK, as we have a god given right to jobs, no matter HOW MANY tax rises a Labour throws at them, as they did over their previous 13-years.

- Domestic small to medium businesses, including the 60,000 odd high street shops that closed over the recession, have to bend over and take Labour dictates, that they HAVE to pay an ever higher Minimum Wage, whether the Low Pay Commission Labour set up to SET an 'affordable' MW rate, agrees with them or not.

The F.T. headline todays states again how Businesses are cacking their pants on the prospect of a Labour - SNP 2015 majority government, as the housing market shows the 7th month of easier prices rises - which you no doubt see as a benefit, not lack confidence in the next 5-years..

A socialist 'tax high, spend badly' dream team means lower business investment and few jobs, reducing the tax receipts to lower the budget deficit and pay for social services (NHS), which means more tax rises to compensate = the socialist downward economic spiral that in 1979 saw income tax at 32% and 60%, and corporate tax at 50%.

The only difference in 2010, was Labour was still in deficit denial, and we were told the tax rises would come AFTER the general election.

Small, Medium & Large businesses without seeing Labour's deficit reduction and so called "fair" post 2015 tax raising plans, KNOW they will be rear-ended by a socialist government, as socialism STILL have not worked out what SUSTAINABLY PAYS for all the government spending - other than their thirst for ever more government debt.

How funny that those that promise soooo much fairness to the workers, end up screwing the business pooch that delivers it, resulting in the opposite i.e. fewer private sector jobs, lower private sector pay and higher taxes for everyone.

if immigrants are not competing for your job and mean you can employ people cheaper or employ better qualified people for the same price as your current unqualified staff, then of course you will be in favour of immigrationif immigrants are direct competition for your job but are better qualified or willing to work for less, then you will be less happy

We are continually told the main reason for immigration is that we have 'skill shortages' - yet kept on educated a small army of children in Media Studies and various next to worthless 'ologies and many left full time education without the basic skills for the workplace - when was that cycle going to be broken under the last government?

It was not hard to find 'better qualified' immigrants on that basis, even when in early 2004 the UK around 580,000 unemployed 16-24 years olds - most of whom called 'well rounded' by the education system, but all going 'around' the corner to claim JSA while employers were trading up hiring non UK citizens.

The difference with immigration over the previous centuries, was that in the main, the UK welcomed those being persecuted elsewhere, and they added to our skills/wealth/culture - while in the 2000's we "went searching" for them, not just for cultural reasons, as we needed to compensate for the lack of skills being provided by our education system, to our children onwards. IMO.

When people talk about how how much land is built on in the uk do they realise that the rest of the land is used for things like forestry or argiculture. For heating and eating! Essential activities like that! The UK can't be on big housing estate can it?

blacksunday ..... re your "Yeah, we should get rid of the minimum wage altogether - it's just a burden on business."

I guess you have decided not to challenge the basic 'supply and demand' economics, that 500 million Europeans with a no borders freedom to work in member states has/can keep pay rates lower than they would be if only the domestic workforce were applicants - so you attempt to put words in my moth about the Minimum Wage, how typically socialist in denial.

Socialist rhetoric has to pretend that every UK company has the ability to pay more and more no matter WHAT new dictates, costs, regulation and red tape Labour throws at it, as if they are all FTSE 250 companies.

But in the real world, the vast majority of our GDP, employment and money to pay for public services, and pay off the deficit, comes from Small and Medium sized businesses who all suffered in Labour's great recession and only just recovering.

The Minimum Wage was possibly the ONLY USEFUL Labour legislation in 13-years, yet the economically clueless idjuts have chosen to 'weaponize' it for cynical electoral gain, indicating an £8 rate by 2020 is out of the Low Pay Commissions hands and will be law whether Labour tank the UK economy again within the next 5-years or less.

The sad think is that Labour has no clue how to 'create' private sector GDP/investment/jobs, they have to wait for the Conservatives to get the economy balanced and growing again, before throwing anti business 'stuff' at it, reversing the growing trend - as evidence by the lack FIRM policy help for businesses in the years after the late 2007 crash, and only recent rumblings for after 2015, as an obvious afterthought.

'Supply and demand' is a theory, and can't be applied in isolation. With a static amount of jobs and increase labour supply, wages will be suppressed.

In reality, more immigration means more demand, which means business can grow, which means it can hire more people.

Secondly, you can stop calling the NHS and low-pay 'weaponized'. These are political matters, as the should be. They are part of the concerns of ordinary people who depend on one or both of these things.

The minimum wage is no where near a level which is harmful to business, and the fact is, there is a problem of low-wages (not to mention poverty, job insecurity, and wealth inequality) in this country.

Raising it slightly by 2020 is a joke, and nowhere near the amount needed to ensure that anyone who works full-time for an honest days work won't have to rely on state subsidies to survive.

-----

The UK minimum wage is about average or slightly below average for similar economies:

"The Low Pay Commission points out that, when both exchange rates and PPPs are taken into account, our minimum wage remained, as in 2010, in the middle of the range of country rates. In PPP terms the UK rate was broadly similar to New Zealand and Canada, above countries such as Spain, the US and Japan, but well below others such as Australia, France and Belgium."

blacksunday …. On ‘supply and demand’ factors on UK domestic wage rates by secret immigration policies that from 2000 (according to my links above) were “sending out search parties”, but telling the electorate up to the 2005 election Labour expected around 19,000 economic migrants - thereby selling 580,000 unemployed 16-24 year olds and those needing cheap/social rental homes down the economic/social river – I am still struggling to see your point, ARE YOU SAYING 3-4 MILLION NEW CITIZENS from 1997 to 2010 did NOT put any downward pressure on UK pay rates?

Next, what is the point of an independent Low Pay Commission, formed under a Labour government and including trade unionists, if a Labour government is guaranteeing a rate what small to medium businesses can afford for the next 5-years – as if this is not ‘weaponising’ the prospects of a future Minimum Wage for electoral gain, WHAT IS?

Finally how can a Low Pay Commission compare the UK Minimum Wage to “similar (global) economies” that means nothing to UK domestic businesses e.g. the 60,000 high street shops that went boobs up, without factoring in what OTHER costs a Labour government will put on small, medium and large businesses from 2015 to 2020?

Labour are not saying HOW they will ‘balance the UK debt books’ as so far they have identified about £2 billion of ideological tax rises to pay down a budget deficit/government overspend that by the election will still be over £85 billion a year.

So for small, medium and large businesses, below are the OTHER cost pressures they all face a combination off and need to plan for years ahead ON TOP of higher wages, ON TOP of the prospects of another UK recession, if the next UK government FAILS to get right the correct tax, spending, growth, jobs and deficit reduction equation.

Higher UK Corporation Tax, Labour want to raise for larger companies after 2015, how soon every other medium then small business.

Higher UK Business Rates (on place of work premises) from a Labour government that put Council Tax on domestic properties up 110% in 13-years, as a favourite ‘progressive’ tax on those with ‘broader shoulders’ to pay for Labour’s fat government spending.

Higher salary costs to senior staff of multinational companies to compensate for penal UK Income Tax Rates, Council Tax and Mansion Tax, using international remuneration scales.

Higher UK regulatory/red tape costs under any socialist government.

Higher UK National Insurance costs, raised several times under the last Labour government.

Higher UK Fuel Escalator costs, raised several times under the last Labour government.

Higher costs/threats of a UK government intervention i.e. Energy Company ‘price freezes’ when energy prices could go back to last years levels, on landlords, on home builders, on cigarette companies, on ANY company making a profit socialist governments ideologically disagree with.

How a much higher a Minimum Wage (or legislation for a Living Wage) whether the Low Pay Commission deem them ‘affordable’ by small and medium sized companies or not?????

The fact is that for the next 5-years, if the OBR forecast of a UK GDP growth rate around 2.5% is derailed by Labour’s unannounced new business taxes etc, and the UK continues to attract EU workers until there is no UK job left, the implementation of a Labour £8 Minimum Wage (currently obtainable with the current government policies) whether small and medium sized companies can afford it or not – will see a dramatic drop in private sector employment.

But unlike 2008, cannot be compensated for by a Labour government by a similar number of 100% taypayer funded public sector jobs 'created' i.e. government non jobs and quangos – IF a labour government is trying to get government debt down, not up.

I think part of the issue is it's difficult to have a sensible discussion about immigration anymore without accusation of racism.

I'm pro-immigration; however I think that, seeing as we are in the eu, there needs to be EU-wide rules on who foots the bill should immigrants require welfare - be that nhs, unemployment benefits, housing.

Fwiw, I'm proud to part of a nation that is built on immigration however I do think that there is a middle ground.

JassyRadlett ... I can see your opening point, but how many business start ups are flushed with cash, and how many mature, perfectly viable businesses can fall on hard times and not be able to borrow to tie themselves over - as we saw with the worst financial/economic crash we have seen in nearly a century that began in 2007/8 - and that is when the role of the government needs to increase, to do what they can to help, not KEEP loading on more taxes.

Clearly on your second point, again valid that saw an unbalancing of the economy and the big hand of government spending too much time raising taxes and working out how to subsidize work, rather than just lower taxation for people to make their own spending/saving choices, is just government for government sake as seen through out the EU.

Which explains their mainly low/flat growth rates and unemployment levels nearly double ours - and why our immigration levels are higher than expected, as we did better than anyone expected back in 2010.

I found it interesting that one of the accountants 'handbooks', The Trolleys Tax Guide, from 1997 to 2010/11 DOUBLED in size to 16,220 pages - so too much time was spent 'tinkering' with taxation, trying to squeeze every pip - rather than for a sustainable private sector driven economy, to benefit all. IMO.

ClashCityRocker .... "I'm proud to part of a nation that is built on immigration however I do think that there is a middle ground."

To our record, so am I, but bad government planning and a bad western recession (still going on in other large European countries) has made this a political problem for the masses, not just here, but throughout Europe.

My problem on "a middle ground" is that we start with virtually every EU government member generally happy with the core freedom to work across founding principle of the EU, so how can it change for the just UK, currently taking up the unemployment slack of those member states?

How can we change that, by being a good signed up member to the EU no matter what, or with a mandate for a UK Referendum on the EU, AFTER we see the results of negotiations?

Indeed. And the absolute worst thing the current govt has done in terms of leaving money in peoe's pockets, particularly the low-paid, has been the rise in VAT, which has more than outstripped the benefit of raising income tax thresholds slightly faster than CPI. That is money that would have gone straight back into the economy given how much more purchasing the poorest do, relative to the richest - helping those struggling businesses.

However, exploitation of workers by not paying a living wage will never be acceptable to me, no matter how much a business is struggling or if it's a startup. Seeking to profit out of the misery of others, and/or expecting the state to pick up the tab for unsustainable business models is not the answer.